[AATW]

All that would do is show examples of ships being "restored" when they are closer than the horizon.
When ships are truly beyond the horizon they cannot be restored

You assert this with no evidence

No I don't. I provided examples. You may dispute the quality of that evidence, and that's fine, but to state I provided "no" evidence is incorrect.
As I've said, I accept the first picture isn't particularly good evidence, I think the second one is better and the Turning Torso video - posted elsewhere - is better still.

and then insist that I accept that as a premise for further arguments. I do not.

I'm not insisting on anything, but I'm not even clear what you're arguing here. You said previously that
"The Sinking Ship Effect is a big hint. It's one of the most elegant proofs of FE out there" - from that it doesn't sound like you dispute the sinking ship effect actually happens, so what are you arguing about? The start of this was when Dual1ty said
"It can if you live next to the sea and you have a telescope/camera to bring those "boats gone over the curve" back into view, though."

He just stated that as a fact, he provided no evidence. Why aren't you picking him up on that?

Once again, you assert this without evidence.

I need to provide evidence that zooming out of a scene would make things smaller? 

Yes. Isn't it remarkable that every time people suggest that you perform a very simple experiment which would help clear your confusion, you refuse to do so and just post pictures you found on the Internet

It isn't that remarkable. I don't live near the coast. Although I did show the results of an experiment I conducted in my front room which demonstrated that objects can be "restored" with optical zoom and demonstrated that it's nothing to do with sinking ships. While we're here, I did actually take some photos during a recent trip to the seaside of a wind farm out to sea, but the results weren't particularly conclusive - I suspect because the turbines weren't far enough away. So it's not like I've made no effort.

[AATW]

No. If the horizon was the curve it would stay fixed as you rise, it would never rise with you. Not even an inch. Of course, it does not rise to eye level and I have never made that claim. But it does visibly rise as you go higher. Impossible if Earth is a ball like I said.

I honestly don't understand why you think this is impossible. The horizon is around 3 miles away, at a normal height on a beach. There is an angle you're looking down at it, but if you're standing on a beach it's so small it's basically impossible to discern. As you ascend that angle does change but very slowly. I did some quick calculations:
2m - 0.0225°
10m - 0.0507°
100m - 0.101°
So it effectively looks like it's at the same position until you get to a significant altitude.

All you have to do to understand this is to drive somewhere and observe that while things on the side of the road whip by quickly, hills a few miles away barely seem to move. They're not moving with you, they're just far away so it takes longer for their position relative to you to change.

[Dual1ty]

No. If the horizon was the curve it would stay fixed as you rise, it would never rise with you. Not even an inch. Of course, it does not rise to eye level and I have never made that claim. But it does visibly rise as you go higher. Impossible if Earth is a ball like I said.

I honestly don't understand why you think this is impossible. The horizon is around 3 miles away, at a normal height on a beach. There is an angle you're looking down at it, but if you're standing on a beach it's so small it's basically impossible to discern. As you ascend that angle does change but very slowly. I did some quick calculations:
2m - 0.0225°
10m - 0.0507°
100m - 0.101°
So it effectively looks like it's at the same position until you get to a significant altitude.

All you have to do to understand this is to drive somewhere and observe that while things on the side of the road whip by quickly, hills a few miles away barely seem to move. They're not moving with you, they're just far away so it takes longer for their position relative to you to change.

lol I'm not looking down at anything, I simply observe the horizon rising with me (or the optical instrument). When you get to a significant altitude such as plane cruising altitude it will appear to dip more unless you use IR. When you use IR, it's really obvious that the horizon extends much further than what is predicted by the globe model. It will still be below eye level, but nothing like what the globe model predicts. At that point the argument from the globe zealots is that it appears to curve horizontally and they ignore how far it extends and the fact that it does not match the globe model prediction (in fact it's way off).

[AATW]

lol I'm not looking down at anything

Well, you've agreed there is horizon dip. So by definition you are looking down but it's not in a way you can perceive. The horizon is, to all intents and purposes, straight in front of you. Which is what you'd expect on both a RE and a FE.

I simply observe the horizon rising with me

Well, sure. But what I'm not understanding is why you think that's an issue for RE.
As I said, observe a hill which is a few miles away from you. Then move 10m to the right. Assuming you can still see the hill has it significantly moved with respect to you? Of course it hasn't, because it's miles away. This is basic parallax.

[RonJ]

The earth’s horizon is the dividing line between the land and the sky.  On a totally flat plain, that line (physically) must be below your eye level because there’s some distance between your feet and your eyes.  This is the dip angle.  One problem on earth is the atmosphere. This is the source of some refraction.  This means that the perceived angle at which the light enters your eye may not be the same as the actual dip angle.  It’s very important for a celestial navigator to know his local weather conditions as well as his ‘height of eye’.  On most large ships the navigator can easily be 125 to 150 feet above sea level, and this would be a significant error if this distance is ignored.  The local temperature and humidity will produce some light refraction that can also cause a measurement error if not corrected for.   It’s important to realize that the physical horizon will always be below your eye level, but that angle may not be perceivable due to atmospheric refraction and/or your inability to decern the differences in very small dip angles. 

[Dual1ty]

The earth’s horizon is the dividing line between the land and the sky.  On a totally flat plain, that line (physically) must be below your eye level because there’s some distance between your feet and your eyes.  This is the dip angle.  One problem on earth is the atmosphere. This is the source of some refraction.  This means that the perceived angle at which the light enters your eye may not be the same as the actual dip angle.  It’s very important for a celestial navigator to know his local weather conditions as well as his ‘height of eye’.  On most large ships the navigator can easily be 125 to 150 feet above sea level, and this would be a significant error if this distance is ignored.  The local temperature and humidity will produce some light refraction that can also cause a measurement error if not corrected for.   It’s important to realize that the physical horizon will always be below your eye level, but that angle may not be perceivable due to atmospheric refraction and/or your inability to decern the differences in very small dip angles.

What physical horizon? You are confirming that the horizon & celestial sphere are always relative to the observer's position and do not exist independently from the observer - meaning that they are a result of perspective and not physical geometry.

All those decades or centuries of heliocentrism being the world's dominating religion and they still haven't produced an ounce of proof of a geometrical ball Earth. It remains a mathematical model only. And a CGI cartoon. Because that's all it is.

[markjo]

I simply observe the horizon rising with me (or the optical instrument).

Would you care to show us an example of the horizon rising with an optical instrument?  Preferably one with a reference level.

[Pete Svarrior]

No I don't. I provided examples.

This is incorrect. You provided examples of two things - obstruction and limitations of camera sensors - and assert without evidence that these cases are the same as what's being discussed. In doing so, you engage in circular logic.

I can help you stop making that error, but you gotta stop "nuh uh"-ing and start engaging with the science. You know how well it goes for you when you double-down on these fuck-ups. Wanna try something else for a change?

He just stated that as a fact, he provided no evidence. Why aren't you picking him up on that?

Well, he's not exactly trying to engage in rational or empirical thought. You claim you do. It's triage. If I wasted my time on every guy that Just Do Be Saying Shit on an online forum, I'd run out of time and resources pretty quickly.

I'd ask you a similar question: you've got a guy that's just saying things over and over, without even attempting to appeal to logic, and you're giving him a good portion of your time. Meanwhile, fixing the flaws in your logic is something you're remarkably good at avoiding - to the point where you go months at a time of constantly repeating the same nonsense and constantly being corrected, with no acknowledgement on your end. What gives?

I need to provide evidence that zooming out of a scene would make things smaller? 

I'm trying to be polite, or at least not immediately viscerally aggressive. Would you care to reciprocate by responding only to things I said, and not things you made up to make yourself feel better?

It isn't that remarkable. I don't live near the coast.

That's a decent excuse for not doing it immediately, in which case you have a perfectly good reason not to respond to these threads for a while. But you do respond, incessantly. In doing so, you forfeit your excuse.

That said, even with the cost of living crisis, I do find it remarkable that you haven't been able to justify the £50 expense in the literal years you've been whinging about not understanding this simple experiment, and that you haven't otherwise found yourself near a lake or sea in all that time. You must be a very busy guy, as evidenced by your posting habits here.

[Dual1ty]

I simply observe the horizon rising with me (or the optical instrument).

Would you care to show us an example of the horizon rising with an optical instrument?  Preferably one with a reference level.

Would you care to explain why things that are farther away at sea level appear higher than things that are closer if it's all exponential downward curvature of Earth?

And how did those boats appear to compress together along with the horizon when the camera was closer to the ground? Did the curve do that too?

[Dual1ty]

Well, he's not exactly trying to engage in rational or empirical thought. You claim you do. It's triage. If I wasted my time on every guy that Just Do Be Saying Shit on an online forum, I'd run out of time and resources pretty quickly.

I'd ask you a similar question: you've got a guy that's just saying things over and over, without even attempting to appeal to logic, and you're giving him a good portion of your time. Meanwhile, fixing the flaws in your logic is something you're remarkably good at avoiding - to the point where you go months at a time of constantly repeating the same nonsense and constantly being corrected, with no acknowledgement on your end. What gives?

So apparently you don't agree with what I say but you don't confront anything I say directly, you just post stuff like this trying to portray me as a "guy that Just Do Be Saying Shit on an online forum". What?

I don't "appeal to logic", I appeal to facts.

[Pete Svarrior]

I don't "appeal to logic", I appeal to facts.

You and I approach things very differently. I don't mind that. Putting the "fun" in "fundamental disagreements" and all that.

AATW claims to approach things in the way I do, but he fucks it up beyond all recognition. I do mind that.

[markjo]

I simply observe the horizon rising with me (or the optical instrument).

Would you care to show us an example of the horizon rising with an optical instrument?  Preferably one with a reference level.

What is tilting the camera up or down supposed to prove?    Photographers can put the horizon anywhere they want.  That's why I asked for a reference level.

Would you care to explain why things that are farther away at sea level appear higher than things that are closer if it's all exponential downward curvature of Earth?

And how did those boats appear to compress together along with the horizon when the camera was closer to the ground? Did the curve do that too?

No, perspective did that.  As objects approach the vanishing point (usually on the horizon), they appear to rise closer to that vanishing point.  Again, you really should review the basic rules of perspective because they do apply, even on a round earth.

[honk]

Nah, I don't buy it. A conspiracy spanning centuries with no genuine motive in sight just isn't feasible to me, and I'd need more evidence than the fact that a number of these historical astronomers were members of a silly club to convince me otherwise.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that you think heliocentrism is just a coincidence and there is no organized conspiracy associated with it?

Heliocentrism not being a coincidence and there being no organized conspiracy associated with it are not mutually exclusive. None of the astronomers from hundreds of years ago were starting from scratch. They all believed the earth to be round, and the false conclusion of heliocentrism naturally followed from this false premise. There is no reason to suppose that they were intentionally lying rather than simply being wrong about the nature of our world, just as the vast majority of people throughout history have been wrong about the nature of our world.

[markjo]

None of the astronomers from hundreds of years ago were starting from scratch. They all believed the earth to be round, and the false conclusion of heliocentrism naturally followed from this false premise.

Incorrect.  Round earth geocentrism was the natural conclusion from that premise and was the dominant model for many, many years.  Heliocentrism was a radical idea that few took seriously and took quite a while to catch on because it was not an intuitive model given the sensibilities of the time.

[Dual1ty]

What is tilting the camera up or down supposed to prove?    Photographers can put the horizon anywhere they want.  That's why I asked for a reference level

It didn't get more tilted than what is already observable. No tilt change between those frames. It's only higher + a little farther away. I know you asked for a reference level, but you're not gonna get one.

Observations from a plane + IR already soundly debunk the globe, because they don't match globe model predictions at all like I said. So far all the globe zealots have ignored that information, including you. Why?

Would you care to explain why things that are farther away at sea level appear higher than things that are closer if it's all exponential downward curvature of Earth?

And how did those boats appear to compress together along with the horizon when the camera was closer to the ground? Did the curve do that too?

No, perspective did that.  As objects approach the vanishing point (usually on the horizon), they appear to rise closer to that vanishing point.  Again, you really should review the basic rules of perspective because they do apply, even on a round earth.

Thanks for confirming that the horizon is a result of perspective and not "curvature of Earth".

Like I said, horizon does not exist independently from the observer and the globe cult have never proved that it does.

Thank you for playing.

[Dual1ty]

Nah, I don't buy it. A conspiracy spanning centuries with no genuine motive in sight just isn't feasible to me, and I'd need more evidence than the fact that a number of these historical astronomers were members of a silly club to convince me otherwise.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that you think heliocentrism is just a coincidence and there is no organized conspiracy associated with it?

Heliocentrism not being a coincidence and there being no organized conspiracy associated with it are not mutually exclusive. None of the astronomers from hundreds of years ago were starting from scratch. They all believed the earth to be round, and the false conclusion of heliocentrism naturally followed from this false premise. There is no reason to suppose that they were intentionally lying rather than simply being wrong about the nature of our world, just as the vast majority of people throughout history have been wrong about the nature of our world.

Yeah, I know... I never claimed that it was a conspiracy from the beginning. Maybe Dubay did, but I did not.

But at this point it is obviously a conspiracy. The video talks about many of the Apollo astronauts being Freemasons or having Freemason dads - that's a fact.

When they claim to land on the Moon (or any of the planets) there is an obvious conspiracy going on even though most people who work for it don't know due to compartmentalization. This only happens in countries where there is a deep Freemasonic presence - that's my point.

[markjo]

I know you asked for a reference level, but you're not gonna get one.

Then those pictures don't prove anything. 

Observations from a plane + IR already soundly debunk the globe, because they don't match globe model predictions at all like I said. So far all the globe zealots have ignored that information, including you. Why?

Do tell.  What does the globe model predict that the pictures from a plane + IR predict that the horizon should look like?

Thanks for confirming that the horizon is a result of perspective and not "curvature of Earth".

The horizon is a result of earth and sky appearing to meet in the distance and will exist regardless of the shape of the earth.  The salient question is whether or not a object can move past and dip below the horizon.  On a flat earth, the answer is no.  On a round earth, the answer is yes.

[Dual1ty]

Then those pictures don't prove anything.

They are evidence of FE. I posted the full video in another thread already.

But I never said they proved anything, that's not how science works.

Do tell.  What does the globe model predict that the pictures from a plane + IR predict that the horizon should look like?

Globe model predicts horizon is much lower than it is in reality. JTolan has excellent examples of this. Maybe you should go to his channel and watch some videos to educate yourself.

The horizon is a result of earth and sky appearing to meet in the distance and will exist regardless of the shape of the earth.  The salient question is whether or not a object can move past and dip below the horizon.  On a flat earth, the answer is no.  On a round earth, the answer is yes.

On a flat Earth the answer is yes; on a ball Earth the answer is much sooner & you would be able to see things gradually tilting for miles while looking down the curve. In reality we don't see that. Ever. The best proof of things tilting that the globe cult has is a Michael Jackson concert.

But no, that's not the salient question. The salient question is why have the globe cult not provided proof of a physical horizon/curvature yet if it is physically there. If I were you I would start to question why there's no proof of a geometrical ball Earth in 2023.

[markjo]

The salient question is why have the globe cult not provided proof of a physical horizon/curvature yet if it is physically there.

That's easy.  It's because, as so many FE'ers have shown time and time again, there is no evidence of curvature that you will accept. 

By the way, the horizon really isn't a physical thing.

[Dual1ty]

That's easy.  It's because, as so many FE'ers have shown time and time again, there is no evidence of curvature that you will accept.

I'm not asking for evidence, I'm asking for proof. Not the same thing.

By the way, the horizon really isn't a physical thing.

Ok? I know that, but if the Earth is a ball then it must be physical, no? What do you think the horizon is, then?